Write a review protocol with evidence, decision rights, escalation rules, and a tested fallback.
Give the reviewer a defined job
Human review is a process with inputs and authority. A person cannot reliably check an answer when the supporting evidence is hidden.
The review question should match the consequence. Checking a summary’s wording differs from approving a payment or an external message.
Decision rights must be explicit before work begins. Name who may approve, reject, request changes, or pause the workflow.
Show the evidence alongside the draft
A review packet contains the proposed output and the evidence needed to judge it. Include unresolved questions and any important system limitations.
Independent checking helps reduce reliance on polished wording. Ask reviewers to inspect the source before accepting the draft’s interpretation.
Data minimization still applies to review screens. Show the necessary evidence without exposing unrelated personal or confidential details.
Make rejection operational
A reject button needs a defined outcome. Specify whether the item returns for correction, moves to a specialist, or stops entirely.
A timeout rule prevents an unanswered approval request from becoming implied consent. For consequential actions, keep execution paused until the required decision exists.
Escalation ownership must remain clear during absences. Name a backup owner and a manual fallback for work that cannot wait.
Inspect a fictional publishing handoff
A fictional editor receives an AI-written announcement containing a new delivery date. The source notes mark that date as tentative.
The review packet shows the draft, the source sentence, and the unresolved approval. Therefore, the editor can identify the unsupported certainty.
The correct handoff returns the draft for correction and seeks confirmation from the schedule owner. Publication remains blocked while the date is unresolved.
| Review field | Required evidence | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery date | Approved schedule or named owner confirmation | Block if only tentative |
| Product claims | Source passages and stated limitations | Correct unsupported promises |
| Recipient and channel | Approved audience and destination | Reject an unintended destination |
| Final text | Exact version to be sent | Re-review material changes |
| Unresolved issue | Named owner and next action | Escalate; do not silently approve |
Check whether review works
A review test uses labeled fictional drafts with planted mistakes. Check which errors reviewers detect and which evidence they need.
Useful measures include missed defects, unnecessary rejections, and review time. Also inspect whether workload makes the intended process unrealistic.
Monitoring and recovery continue after launch. NIST’s AI RMF includes monitoring, response, recovery, and responsibilities for disabling systems when needed.
Practice: test the approval boundary
Your exercise creates three fictional announcements: one correct, one with an unsupported date, and one aimed at the wrong audience.
A colleague’s review should produce different decisions using the same protocol. If every draft receives approval, inspect the evidence and instructions together.
A strong protocol makes review authority and stop conditions observable. Explain what happens when the reviewer is absent or the draft changes after approval.
Compare with the worked answer
Worked answer: Approve only the supported draft for its intended audience. Hold the tentative date for confirmation and reject the wrong destination. Material edits require renewed approval of the exact version. An absent reviewer triggers escalation or a paused workflow, never automatic publication.
What to carry forward
Write a review protocol with evidence, decision rights, escalation rules, and a tested fallback.
Show your reasoning with the exercise above. Keep the evidence, the decision, and the remaining uncertainty together.